[23throwaway23]

Given that IPCC and other world bodies suggest we need to be reducing emissions by 7.6% every year for the next decade (starting this year). We're doing the almost exact opposite.

The US and China are increasing hostilities and are locked in a downward spiral of increased military spending (and associated emissions).

Most of the economic elite, while paying lip service is in utter denial about the direness of the situation.

With a few exceptions (New Zealand), every developed and developing society is prioritizing the economy and economic development over the preservation of a viable human future.

We're bordering on insanity.

[zzzcpan]

If you want to compare which problems are worse, plenty are much worse than slow effects of climate change, like wars, contagious diseases, exploitation of poor people, poverty and inequality in general, political systems controlled by the rich that want to keep it that way, etc. Those problem cause massive suffering and even death. And what's the worse that could happen to humans due to climate change? Some foods might disappear, some people might need to modify their houses for new weather, some might need to relocate. It's not insane to simply ignore the problem altogether, it's very rational. Now how to solve all those actual problems is a big question.

[23throwaway23]

Not sure where you're getting your information. We've consistently underestimated how fast things are happening, and how much sooner they're happening.

All of those problems you identified are accelerating global warming and will be made worse by it. Unless we reduce emissions drastically immediately (and stop the biosphere collapse), we're likely en route to at a bare minimum a +3C world, with a ~20% chance of a +4C world within our lifetimes.

Estimates of what survive at a +4C world range from a few hundred million to a maybe 1-3B people. That's what, somewhere between 50-90% of humanity dying off. Look to your left, look to your right, unless we do something today, those people are going to die.

The World Bank in 2012 came out with a report as to Why We Need to Avoid a 4C world. At that time, they suggested that +4C is a low probability as early as 2050's-60's. Their assumptions then were that we'd stop curbing emissions in 2015 (they've gone up), and they also drastically underestimated how much higher CO2e concentrations would be increasing in the atmosphere (they assumed CO2e concentrations would go up by 1.5 ppm / year, but instead, they've gone up 2.6 ppm / year)

The issue with climate is compounded by something called "thermal inertia", which in practice means that the action we take today won't bear fruit for another 30 years.

So yea, unless we drastically reduce emission and stop the biosphere collapse, this generation, meaning YOU, meaning the elites who ignore this, and yes me, will likely be responsible for the largest die off of life since ... well the last mass extinction event.

So yea, pay attention to the science. Pay attention to the scientists and the literature.

The picture is bleak.

[zzzcpan]

There is no science today that can make any kind of confident predictions on the effects of climate change on human population in 30 years from now.

[23throwaway23]

Um... There's actually quite a bit. What is the basis of your claim?

The most famous is the limits to growth model (developed by the Club of Rome in the 1970's, which we're unfortunately tracking quite closely). You can read about that model here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth , though there are many academic articles about. That is a quantifiable, falsifiable model that has had about 50 years of predictive power. The next 30 years according to that model are horrific.

Another scientific effort is what is being calculated by the global footprint network - https://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/climate-change/. We've been in a deficit also since about the 1970's, and that overconsumption is directly connected to the current scientifically documented biosphere collapse which suggests that we're in the middle of the 6th mass extinction event on earth.

Lastly, a number of independent modellers have attempted to show what the world looks like. Here's a brief article with a map. https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/what-the-world-will-look-l.... From the article:

> Micronesia is gone – sunk beneath the waves. Pakistan and South India have been abandoned. And Europe is slowly turning into a desert. This is the world, 4°C warmer than it is now.

90% of where humans currently inhabit would be inhospitable to human life. That's about 6-7B people that will have to move across 1000's of km on the order of less than a decade. Likely into the Arctic and Antarctic ... where .. topsoil formation typically takes 100's of years.

Moreover, if you think xenophobic Europeans or Americans are going to allow Africans, Asians and Central Americans in, when they're putting existing climate refugees into concentration camps RIGHT NOW, you should perhaps rethink your worldview.

[zzzcpan]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. A model is essentially an unproven hypothesis, it can never be proven and confidence in the model depends on the evidence. With models on the effects of climate change (aka impact models) the confidence is pretty much non existent, there were literal studies done to show that, it's actually a huge and complex ongoing research area. So the predictions of doom is nothing more, but propaganda, that conveniently forgets to say that such predictions are very likely to be wrong.

[makerofspoons]

It will be difficult to tackle any of those problems if the climate causes civilization to collapse: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-08/collapse-of-ci...

It's more than a few foods disappearing or people modifying they're homes- it's entire breadbaskets of the world disappearing and entire cities needing to be abandoned.

[zzzcpan]

Well, we have displaced people from different wars right now, but only some predictions on the possible effects of climate change, and I believe consensus among them is not even favoring the "civilization collapse" side.

Human civilization is just not at the point when it can afford to worry about pretty much unpredictable long term global environmental risks.